Jump to content

Dave@Moon

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7,882

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Dave@Moon

    First Classic Car with a $12,500 Budget

    in General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Dave@Moon (see edit history)

    My list of wants are as follows: 1) Looks cool 2) Reliable 3) Not terrible on fuel 4) Reasonably fast 5) Manual transmission. To get an idea of where I sit, I rather like Ford Falcons and other saloon muscle cars. Any help would be appreciated.

    You need to add one more "want" to your list to get a fairly accurate idea of what's available, and that is condition. If you want a perfect trailer queen car for that kind of money you'll have very limited choices. If you can live with a few cosmetic issues on a car that's regularly driven, then a MUCH wider range of vehicles is open to you. Regardless you'll always need to temper any suggestions with what turns you on.

    Personally I went from 1960s era American cars to European sports cars because I found there was just more driving fun for the buck there, with (if anything) better support in the market in the U.S. (clubs and parts especially). Your budget would allow for a near-trailer queen quality Triumph Spitfire, MG Midget, or even an Austin Healey Sprite. For a driver vehicle at that money you could be in a Triumph TR4, TR4A, or TR6 easily, and even a somewhat better than average driver MGB or MGB GT. Virtually all of these cars are manuals, something that's pretty rare already by the 1960s in U.S. products. Also all of these cars are much more reliable than their reputations might suggest. My driver TR6 has seen about 10,000 miles since I bought it with only one minor repair. A VW Beetle is also well within this budget, although I think it's probably too far from what you're expressed interests are, (BTW, your choice of the word "saloon" tells me that you're probably already familiar with the British end of this market.)

    If you want to stick to American cars, most compacts (Falcon, Valiant, Dart, Nova) car be bought in pretty decent shape for that kind of money, but a mid-size or bigger car would almost have to be a 4 door sedan to be in good condition. If there are are exceptions, they are 2-fold--up market and down market (in very general terms). Chevys reign as kings in the market, with Fords and Dodge/Plymouth Mopars shortly behind. However the upper ranges of each company tend to be less valuable. You'll generally pay less (equal condition) for a Pontiac than a Chevy, for a Olds over a Pontiac, for a Buick over an Olds, and a Caddy over any of them. That's even more pronounced with FoMoCo and Chrysler products. Mercurys and Chryslers (IMHO) are badly undervalued in today's market. Be wary of any fixer-uppers, however, as parts costs do not reflect this difference at all! Also gas mileage will decline in many cases as you go upmarket, although some V6 Buicks and straight 6 Pontiacs are out there to be found and there are oddities. (My former 1960 Buick LeSabre had a rare "export"/regular gas engine that got a reliable 14 mpg city/17 mph highway, about 3 mpg better than "normal" versions of the same car.)

    As far as down market is concerned, there is always AMC. Their cars are not to be dismissed, and can be had in very nice shape for not much money. I would bet that a $12K Javelin would be by far the best pony car of a group of $12k Mustangs/Camaros/Firebirds/etc. Even some Studebaker products, especially Larks and Daytonas, are not out of the question. Also some pretty decent pickup trucks and SUVs are available in this price range, however I think all of them would lose on the mpg and fast counts.

    Good luck. Taky your time, and have fun!:)

    Models disappearing after 2014

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    We were talking about the SS Chevy in the showroom.

    Noticing the heavy rear brakes and wide based tires I asked if it was rear wheel drive????

    "Why, yes it is. It has a Corvette engine, and special suspension!"

    Really????? Where does it say that? That's when I asked the stupid question...

    "When are you guys going to post the big signs?"

    LOOK AT OUR NEW HIGH POWERED SEDAN!

    Well, he said that they would not make that many, and.........

    So, in other words..."What's the point?"

    The SS has a combined EPA MPG rating of 17 mpg, worse than most SUVs. With ever more stringent C.A.F.E. standards being enforced through 2026, there is NO WAY any company, not even GM, could take a major hit by selling large numbers of 17 mpg cars. That's why the darn thing costs $43,475 (msrp) stripped even though it's only a 5 passenger sedan. EVERY Cadillac sedan has a base price less than that! That's also why getting a V8 in a pickup is getting harder and more expensive every year.

    If you want one of these things and don't care about the consequences of burning all the gas these things need, get it soon! I wouldn't expect these cars to last on the market more than a few years in significant numbers.

    Models disappearing after 2014

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Wow you have really altered the heck out of the dimensions to favor the Prius. These are nothing like what is published in KBB

    Here are the three compared which I can verify against the car I personally own.

    http://www.kbb.com/compare-cars/specs/2011-ford-crown-victoria-352514-vs-2012-toyota-prius-373440-vs-2012-ford-escape-364411/

    My figures were cut and pasted directly from Motor Trend's online specifications. The Kelly specs listed here show the Crown Vic having a 131 cu. ft. trunk, about 10% larger than a 5'x5'x5' cube. God knows where they got that from. The Escape's capacity given int he same comparison is for a vehicle with the rear seats folded, hardly useful for a taxi.

    I suspect the Motor Trend figures are a lot more accurate than Kelly's.

    What orphan car will be the next Tucker?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Tesla, there was an article recently in Business Week predicting they will be bankrupt by 2017.

    That doesn't seem to show up in their BusinessWeek Profile ( http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=27444752 ) and their most recent feature in BusinessWeel was titled "Why Everybody Loves Tesla" ( http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-07-18/the-tesla-electric-cars-creators-chase-their-iphone-moment ). Also they posted their first profit in 2013, and their stock price is up over 40% so far this year.

    Standard and Poor did just lower their bond rating, citing concerns for increasing competition ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2014/05/28/sp-gives-tesla-a-junk-bond-rating-cites-vulnerable-business/ ). At the same time, however, they had serious praise for the company and their products.

    Still, the agency had praise for the high-profile electric car company, acknowledging elements in Tesla’s favor like “improving brand recognition, ongoing cost structure improvements…and lower logistics costs,” as well as the automaker’s “ability to command a price premium through its Model S product, design and technology.”

    I think a far more likely candidate for the Tucker of the 2000s is the Fisker electric car. Currently bankrupt, it may be revived by a billionaire investor from China who may or may not be only interested in the company's patents. That said, the car itself was worthy of a better fate by any measure.

    post-30638-143142539458_thumb.jpg

    Models disappearing after 2014

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Neither the Escape or the Prius offer the room and comfort of a Crown Vic. They fine for a short trip if you only have two passengers (a third if they allow anyone to sit up front with the driver) and maybe a few bags. Rear shoulder and leg room are tight in either. If you had to have one of these pick you up from the airport, you'd have to hope an Escape was available and even that doesn't have the cargo room of the Crown Vic.

    My daily driver is a Crown Vic PI. 5 adults (including driver) can ride comfortably in it and carry a decent amount of luggage. 6 people would fit fine if I had a bench seat up front instead of buckets.

    While hybrids save a ton of gas when used as taxis:

    Gasoline costs in taxi use*: Crown Vic. $8750.00, Prius $2550.00, Escape (hybrid) $3850.00. (*$3/50/gal., 35,000 mi./yr., 100% city driving--using the fueleconomy.gov calculator)

    None of them (except the newest PriusC) are small cars. At worst the Prius is a mid-sized car equal to a Chevy Malibu or Ford Fusion. As for interior dimensions, these are all from Motor Trend online:

    Crown Vic.: Internal dimensions: front headroom (inches): 39.5, rear headroom (inches): 37.7, front hip room (inches): 57.6, rear hip room (inches): 58.7, front leg room (inches): 41.6, rear leg room (inches): 38.4, front shoulder room (inches): 60.8, rear shoulder room (inches): 60.3 and interior volume (cu ft): 109.8

    Prius: Internal dimensions: front headroom (inches): 38.6, rear headroom (inches): 37.6, front hip room (inches): 52.7, rear hip room (inches): 51.2, front leg room (inches): 42.5, rear leg room (inches): 36.0, front shoulder room (inches): 54.9, rear shoulder room (inches): 53.1 and interior volume (cu ft): 93.7

    Escape: Internal dimensions: front headroom (inches): 40.4, rear headroom (inches): 39.2, front hip room (inches): 53.3, rear hip room (inches): 49.1, front leg room (inches): 41.6, rear leg room (inches): 35.6, front shoulder room (inches): 56.6 and rear shoulder room (inches): 55.9

    Cargo Room: Cargo room: 2008 Ford Crown Victoria: 21 cu. ft., 2014 Toyota Prius (rear seats not folded): 22 cu. ft., 2012 Ford Escape: 31 cu. ft.

    --Note that while the Crown Vic. enjoys a 6" advantage in rear hip room over the Prius, it actually has less rear leg room than the Prius. Also note that the Crown Vic. has the smallest trunk of all three cars.

    Models disappearing after 2014

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    And this is a surprise because???

    Obviously it's not a surprise, just an absurdity that I've long opined about here. What I am finding ever more amusing is the reverse usage seen among most SUV drivers. The more capable an off-road machine becomes, the more pampered it usually is. It's very rare that i see a Highlander or a Rav4 receiving the kid glove care afforded* most extreme off-roaders like FJ Cruisers, Land Cruisers, and lifted 4WD Tundras. The latter are never seen with dirty tires, and rarely haul anything more than a laptop.

    Why do people become posers for an activity almost no one does?:confused:

    (* a word very deliberately chosen)

    Models disappearing after 2014

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    I'm wondering what alternatives are there for the Crown Vic for taxis?

    Right now a great many taxis (about 1/2 in NYC) are hybrids. Progressive cities, like San Francisco, are nearing 100% hybrid taxi fleets. Priuses and older Ford Escapes are very common, even here in Cincinnati.

    post-30638-143142536463_thumb.jpg

    However NYC recently awarded a 10 year contract to Nissan to build Nissan’s NV-200 as the exclusive taxi supplier there. Environmentally it's a step backwards, and is largely related to the unique way NYC issues it's taxi medallions (e.g. not to the people who buy the gas for the taxi).

    post-30638-143142536429_thumb.jpg

    http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2012/10/6538091/combusted-death-hybrid-taxis-new-york?page=all

    Models disappearing after 2014

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    I've yet to meet the person who bought a utility van for it's appearance.

    The FJ Cruiser made sense (sort of) in a world of $1.50/gal., relatively harmless fuel (in environmental terms). In today's world of ever increasing C.A.F.E. standards to fight climate change, vehicles like the FJ make less sense every day. I see about 20/week at the Toyota dealer service department where I now work, and in the last year I've seen exactly one (owned and used by a surveyor) out of hundreds that is used off road in any capacity. (If you want one get a used one, they're almost all pretty much immaculate grocery-getters used by well-to-do housewives.) The Nissan Murano CrossCabriolet is a similar out-of-step vehicle, made into a silly expensive SUV convertible that nobody asked for.

    What baffles me is the collapse of Mitsubishi. I've owned two, and they were every bit the equal of any Toyota/Mazda/Subaru I've owned in quality and reliability (just like their collective reputations in consumer tests). But their marketing mistakes have been terrific (i.e. 2 wildly different SUVs with basically the same name, failure to follow up any success [Eclipse, EVO, Montero Sport, Galant, Mighty Max truck, etc.] with a model that actually improved on the original, failing to capitalize on unique models [they're still the last company to introduce a new true compact station wagon in the U.S.--the 2003-2004 Mirage wagon which was almost never promoted]. etc.). The loss of the EVO, a truly exceptional performance car, leaves Mitsubishi with nothing but a smattering of some of the dullest cars sold in the U.S. They're still well made, but not likely to be cherished by their owners.

    Is a 1975 Ford Maverick Grabber Sport really that slow!?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    First of all, the "grabber" option was nothing more than an appearance package. It had no more bearing on performance than a vinyl roof or color-keyed wheel covers (also both available).

    I believe by 1974 all straight 6 cylinder Fords had gone to 5 lug wheels.

    18 seconds for a 0-60 time is about right for a 6 cylinder automatic Grabber. It's is WAY to fast to be a 1/4 mile time. 302 V8 Mustang Cobra II's at that time were only doing 18.2 sec. 1/4 miles. The best 1/4 mile time for Maverick Grabbers I could find online was 17.4 sec. for a 1974 302 V8. In 1974 the biggest 6 cylinder Ford Maverick (250 cu. in., there were also 200 and 170 cu. in. versions which may have been optioned into "Grabber" appearance models) was rated at 81 hp. That's exactly 30 fewer horsepower than a 1984 Volvo 240 DL. This link is for a simulated* detailed performance profile of a 200 cu. in. 1975 Maverick Grabber (75 hp): ( http://www.automobile-catalog.com/performance/1975/841475/ford_maverick_grabber_200_six.html ). 0-60 for this car was 18.8 sec., with a 1/4 mile time of 21.8 sec. And that was with a manual transmission, most of these cars came with a VERY inefficient automatic.

    Also 80-90 mph is a reasonable top speed for a 6 cylinder Maverick. My 1960 Ford Falcon (144 cu. in., automatic) could only do about 72 flat out on level ground. Choked by emission standards and severely restricted exhaust, many cars of this era were limited in top speed to such numbers. Also the Maverick was just about as un-aerodynamic as a car can get. The car in the link above had a theoretical top speed of 99 mph, but again that was with the manual.

    1975 is not the year to be looking for a fast car, especially among American cars.

    * See: http://www.automobile-catalog.com/simulation.php

    Is The Packard Automobile Comming Back?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    If all a new Packard/Studebaker/Triumph/Hudson/etc. were was a name applied to product, would you really want it to come back? "Bugatti" was revived by Volkswagen, but is it really the same? Even if VW starts building high end, lightweight sports-racers more in tune with the original impetus of the old company and calls them Bugattis, since they're 60 years removed from the original heritage and makers of the car what would they be? The Chinese are building an "MG Magnette", is it the same? Even if it's a better car than BMC could build, would it be real MG?

    The older I get, and the more I appreciate the historical value and nature of collector cars, the more I dislike the idea that they should be revived. It diminishes the name, especially in the eye of the general public. If Fiat wants to build a "Dodge Dart", that's fine. That is still (thorough numerous ownership changes) still the same entity. If they decide to come out with a line of Plymouths or DeSotos, more power to them although I doubt anyone will be fooled into thinking they're a continuation of the same heritage. If their next car is called a Kaiser Darrin (which I believe they would own the name rights via ownership transfers), that would be stretching it...., a lot. If Fiat (or Microsoft for that matter) decides to market a new Auburn boattail sports coupe or Saab sedan, my impression would be that it's a pretender and an imposter.

    Reviving Maybach didn't work, and I don't see how much of anything in the same vein would be any different.

    New ethanol study, 21 April 2014

    in General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Dave@Moon
    typo (see edit history)

    Now what?:eek: This graph is part of a video (available in classrooms as a DVD) produced by an organization called "Emerging Science and Understanding" (ESAU). I did a Yahoo and Google search in an attempt to determine where this organization is within the "political spectrum", but the only thing I've been able to find is the video itself. I haven't taken the time to view the complete video, but from the little I've seen, it appears to present another side of the highly politicized global warming debate. The ESAU indicate that the 530 scientists surveyed are PHDs actually working on climate issues. While the figures in the pie charts may not be exact, I believe that it indicates that there is still a healthy debate within the scientific community over global warming. Who knows?:confused: I just thought it was interesting.

    This post confirms my guilt in weighing in on the Global Warming issue, but I still think we should return to the original subject: the suitability of ethanol and ethanol blended fuels as motor fuels.

    ethanol over ice; hmmm, good,

    Grog

    15-2003Survey_lg.jpg

    In 2003, Bray and von Storch conducted a survey of the perspectives of climate scientists on global climate change.[citation needed] The survey received 530 responses from 27 different countries. The 2003 survey has been strongly criticized on the grounds that it was performed on the web with no means to verify that the respondents were climate scientists or to prevent multiple submissions. The survey required entry of a username and password, but the username and password were circulated to a climate skeptics mailing list and elsewhere on the internet.[citation needed] Bray and von Storch defended their results and accused climate change skeptics of interpreting the results with bias. Bray's submission to Science on December 22, 2004 was rejected.[citation needed]
    --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

    I strongly suggest you read the overviews provided in the (admittedly layman-oriented) Wikipedia link provided, with special emphasis on change over time since this 2003 survey was publis..., well actually it was rejected for publication for reasons above. Notice how frequently the figure "97-98%" surfaces in all of the latest surveys.

    A "healthy debate"? Not here or anywhere else. Sadly that won't matter to many (if any) who read this, and neither does anything else.

    Like any other problem involving ethanol, the ability to admit there is a problem is the first and biggest step in the process. And like any other problem involving ethanol, many will never take that step.

    :(

    New ethanol study, 21 April 2014

    in General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Dave@Moon (see edit history)

    You're fighting a belief system, and a rather seductive one at that because it ties into feelings of victimization.

    :(

    I should have more properly described this as fighting a part of a belief system. This particular part is called denialism, and while it is hardly limited to Climate Change ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism ) it is used by interested parties (usually financially interested) ( http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/ ) to shade the discussion at large ( http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming_denialism --watch for the tumbleweeds:D).

    New ethanol study, 21 April 2014

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    I firmly believe there is a massive change underway on our planet, I can't presume to know if it;s a normal cycle or a man-made one...

    The wider point, constantly missed and probably deliberately so, is that the change you describe was predicted. It was predicted in timing and scale mathematically by the best minds of generations past. And they did so decades before it began happening, and continue to do so accurately and with reasonable precision. Other "informative" noise from other past predictions looking at other phenomena will be used to distract from that fact (cue the next "coming ice age/global cooling hypothesis" based mocking), and those noises will frequently pass for "scientific" (political) critique.

    BTW, it's best to not use the term "believe" regarding factual phenomena. Facts and errors exist. Only truths or lies are believed.:)

    New ethanol study, 21 April 2014

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    People can have an opinion but their opinion doesn't alter reality.

    Sure it does, not only their own reality but everyone else's. This country has fought multiple wars over opinions that later proved to be non-factual, and that's a pretty stunning change of reality for everyone involved. This ethanol/Climate Change "opinion" (probably better stated a "truth") is no different.

    You're fighting a belief system, and a rather seductive one at that because it ties into feelings of victimization. That's why I characterized these discussions as "religious" in nature.

    At some point the major emphasis to be drawn from these discussions is more a reflection of who tolerates these "opinions" in their name than the truths themselves. The collective reality outside this discussion is well known. Woe be to the future credibility of any organization that allows it's image to be tainted by zealous disregard in it's name for what is often derisively called "settled science" here.

    :(

×
×
  • Create New...